Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington stateuniversity when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites todepart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a show of force andan act of oppression.

For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded aracist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. OnThursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due topolice telling him it wasnt safe for the mild academic to appear at hisplace of work.

One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was necessarybecause its life or death for us.

This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all overthe country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Severaluniversities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housingso minority students can live without the terror of whitemicroaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State Universityat Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.

Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition forall students of color  because of white supremacy.

And theres been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidationagainst any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma ofhigher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowingsupposed hate speech (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down anyspeech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how itwill somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violenceand threats to be used against the opposition, as were currently seeingnow at Evergreen State.

No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments andtitled it, No Campus for White Men

Professor Weinsteins ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends ineducation. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day ofsymbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid ideafor enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil whiteracist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.

Weinsteins well-established progressive credentials were discarded infavor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, hiswhiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondaryin importance.

The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, andthat view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrationsrather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.

Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identitypolitics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached byprofessors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university anddepends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, butIm sure the average voter  whether Democrat or Republican  would not bepleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech andforcing white students and faculty off campus.

The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur alsohave the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.--Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar indenial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown carparade of the democrat party has run out of gas.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of theObama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became theThe World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by itssupporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimumwage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can'tbe funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how greatit is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eightyears he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queerliberal democrat donors.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targetedbecause he was white (rather than for what he said).

Post by Leroy N. Soetorohttp://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/no-campus-for-professors-opposed-to-anti-white-racism/?google_editors_picks=trueEvergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein learned thesevere consequences of opposing campus leftists this week.Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington stateuniversity when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites todepart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a “show of force andan act of oppression.”For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded aracist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. OnThursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due topolice telling him it wasn’t safe for the mild academic to appear at hisplace of work.One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was “necessary”because “it’s life or death for us.”This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all overthe country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Severaluniversities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housingso minority students can live without the terror of whitemicroaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State Universityat Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition forall students of color — because of “white supremacy.”And there’s been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidationagainst any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma ofhigher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowingsupposed “hate speech” (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down anyspeech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how itwill somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violenceand threats to be used against the opposition, as we’re currently seeingnow at Evergreen State.No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments andtitled it, “No Campus for White Men“…Professor Weinstein’s ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends ineducation. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day ofsymbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid ideafor enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil whiteracist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.Weinstein’s well-established progressive credentials were discarded infavor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, hiswhiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondaryin importance.The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, andthat view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrationsrather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identitypolitics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached byprofessors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university anddepends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, butI’m sure the average voter — whether Democrat or Republican — would not bepleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech andforcing white students and faculty off campus.The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur alsohave the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targetedbecause he was white (rather than for what he said).

Post by Leroy N. Soetorohttp://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/no-campus-for-professors-opposed-to-anti-white-racism/?google_editors_picks=trueEvergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein learned thesevere consequences of opposing campus leftists this week.Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington stateuniversity when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites todepart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a “show of force andan act of oppression.”For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded aracist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. OnThursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due topolice telling him it wasn’t safe for the mild academic to appear at hisplace of work.One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was “necessary”because “it’s life or death for us.”This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all overthe country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Severaluniversities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housingso minority students can live without the terror of whitemicroaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State Universityat Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition forall students of color — because of “white supremacy.”And there’s been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidationagainst any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma ofhigher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowingsupposed “hate speech” (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down anyspeech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how itwill somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violenceand threats to be used against the opposition, as we’re currently seeingnow at Evergreen State.No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments andtitled it, “No Campus for White Men“…Professor Weinstein’s ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends ineducation. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day ofsymbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid ideafor enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil whiteracist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.Weinstein’s well-established progressive credentials were discarded infavor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, hiswhiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondaryin importance.The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, andthat view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrationsrather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identitypolitics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached byprofessors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university anddepends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, butI’m sure the average voter — whether Democrat or Republican — would not bepleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech andforcing white students and faculty off campus.The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur alsohave the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targetedbecause he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhancedpunishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhancedpunishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.

The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, nothate per se.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhancedpunishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.

The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, nothate per se.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhancedpunishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.

The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, nothate per se.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Post by Josh RosenbluthFor there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate theFirst Amendment.

Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.

Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhancedpunishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.

The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, nothate per se.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand whysomeone who commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should bepunished more, or less, than someone who commits the identicalcrime motivated by a different kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. Butwhy it should be so was not answered.

Those who voted were a bunch of opportunistic politicians capitalizing ona few days of media outrage over a supposed queer killing, and ignoringthe fact that the legislation was originally proposed in response to JamesByrd getting dragged to death.

That was one of the biggest mistakes in US legislative history. If itcame up for a vote today, it would not pass.

It should be repealed, stricken from the books.

Besides failing to vet Obama, that's another item to add to the growinglist of reasons to piss on Nancy Pelosi's grave. It happened on her watchand he's the racist democrat who signed it.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

Post by Just WonderingI don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

Post by Just WonderingI don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) asopposed to consequence of action.

Yes, but it is common to have different prison sentences for exactly thesame consequence of the action.

But *NOT* based on the thoughts of the perpetrator regarding the groupmembership of the victim - at least, not until so-called "hate" crimeenhancements came along. Motive does not change the crime that ischarged; "hate" crime enhancements do. That is wrong. It iscriminalizing thought. Motive doesn't change the basic crime with whichthe perp is charged. "Hate" crime enhancements do. There are differentsentences for the *same* crime for a variety of reasons, but a "hate"crime enhancement makes it a *DIFFERENT* crime - the underlying chargeis different. That's criminalization of thought.

Face the facts, little sophomore: "Hate" crime charges change thefundamental crime that is being charged. That's criminalization ofthought, and that is fundamentally wrong. You agree that it's wrong,but you're a lying sophist and shitbag, so you're contorting yourselfinto knots to try to say it's something other than what it plainly is.

Post by Just WonderingI don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) asopposed to consequence of action.

Yes, but it is common to have different prison sentences for exactlythe same consequence of the action.

But *NOT* based on the thoughts of the perpetrator regarding the groupmembership of the victim - at least, not until so-called "hate" crimeenhancements came along. Motive does not change the crime that ischarged; "hate" crime enhancements do. That is wrong. It iscriminalizing thought. Motive doesn't change the basic crime with whichthe perp is charged. "Hate" crime enhancements do. There are differentsentences for the *same* crime for a variety of reasons,

Post by Just WonderingI don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

Post by Josh RosenbluthHate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was theevidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because oftheir race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished*per se*.

Right. If there had only been hate, there would have been nopunishment. It was the conjunction of hate and one of the chosen andlisted criminal acts that generates a punishment for a hate crime, agreater punishment than for the crime itself. But that doesn't changethings. It is still enhancing the punishment because of what is intheir head.

And it is similar but not the same as the difference between intentionalmurder and manslaughter. In that case, the thought is intention to dothe act, but in the hate crime cases, the difference is the presence ofhate. There is a qualitative difference between intention and hate.

Despite all this, I think that the laws against racial hate crimes werenecessary, and still are**. They probably wouldn't have been if since1865 and constantly since then, regular laws had been enforced, but inmuch of the country, most of the time and most of the country much ofthe time, crimes against black people were given short shrift or in mostcases ignored altogether

**I look forward to a day when a racist restaurant (etc.) owner canrefuse to serve blacks and no one will care because he's one out of 1000restaurants and the other owners not only aren't practicing racists, butdon't even have racist views. They are as happy to have black customersas white ones, and not just because of the money but because they likethem as people. However that day is still quite far away.

I do have a problem with the same rules being extended to othercategories, each one affecting fewer people than the one before them,but at the same time, not all categories. Why is there no civilrights law to protect garbage men, or to protect racists (People seemto think you can't kick anyone out of your restaurant, but if someonecomes in making racist remarks (and lets assume he's not just joking)the owner can kick him out. Why is there no law protecting, that is,creating, his right to eat anywhere?

What about people with bare feet? They are constantly discriminatedagainst. Proprietors have no shame. They will post it publicly.

What about political views?

Why is national origin protected in many laws. No one forced thosepeople to come here. It's not like slavery and race.

In general the difference is that some groups have organized lobbies andsome don't, and while that's no way to make laws, that's the way wehave.

I just looked at the list of ngs and I saw that fans of limbaugh wereincluded, so let me repeat: The laws against racial discrimination inpublic accommodations and work place and housing were justified, wereessential and long overdue, and they remain justified and essential,because the situation was intolerable, and it was the consequence ofslavery which was also intolerable.

I am sort of opposed to but don't have strong feelings about the othercategories, religion, national origin, sexual proclivity, and a fewothers, even though one of them applies to me. And one time anemployer was trying extra hard to make sure I wasn't so to speak"discriminated against" because I was in that category. Eventually thatproblem got solved by my becoming an hourly worker. In othersituations, the discrimination against my category might be far worseand then I'd be happy there was a law to protect me. Other members ofmy category might have reason already to be happy the protection exists.

My opposition is based on the fact that it is punishing thought, and notall categorizations get protected, like those I listed above, but all inall, the country is a much better place with these laws. Threeexceptions arose during the last 20 years. I do think that it shouldn'tjust be the church itself that doesn't have to pay for abortioninsurance but it should include Xian schools and Xian hospitals, andsince one is crazy to run a business without incorporating, I thinkindividually owned businesses that don't sell stock that areincorporated should cost the owner the rights he would have if he werenot incorporated. However these two exceptions probably might be usedfraudulently even more than used properly, so I'd need a lot moreinformation to see if it was possible to implement them.

And I don't think transgender is a sex that was considered to be a sexwhen the civil rights law regarding sex was passed. Those who voted onthe law probably didn't even know transgender existed, other thanChristine Jorgenson. Although it would not be the first time, a law hasbeen extended to cover situations which weren't considered, or didn'texist, when the law was passed.

That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone whocommits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by adifferent kind of hate.

Asked and answered.

No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But whyit should be so was not answered.

You're absolutely right about that for many, and for some others theirvoters thought just what you say here, that racial injustice was abigger societal problem than avarice and jealousy. And I agreed withthem then and now.

Post by mickyandsince one is crazy to run a business without incorporating, I thinkindividually owned businesses that don't sell stock that areincorporated should cost the owner the rights he would have if he were

I'm not sure where I stand on family corporations that don't sell stock,even if it's a nuclear family or allmost. Parents, children (and maybegrandparents or grandchidren. What about parents' brother or sister?)

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

Post by Preston HamblinWe've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then heis punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he waspunched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.

Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencingby a judge is common practice.

But considering factors during sentencing that are not elements of thecrime itself is altogether different from defining the elements of thecrime itself to include those factors.

I think it has the same effect when it is the jury that determines ifaggravating factors justify a greater sentence.

Nonetheless, anti-discrimination laws are defined by the motive. If yourefuse to serve a black person, you have only committed a crime if yourmotivation was because the person was black.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is abigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice orjealousy.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is abigger societal problem

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice isa bigger societal problem

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice isa bigger societal problem

In other words, those who support a thought-police state.

Racial injustice isn't a thought.

There is no such thing as "racial injustice". What you mean is peoplethinking "incorrect thoughts" on the basis of race. That's what you mean.

There is no such thing as "racial injustice". What you mean is peoplethinking "incorrect thoughts" on the basis of race. That's what you mean.

You really need your face mashed in.

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had adiscussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef fromUSDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply fromWilliam T.Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Herebelow is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing yourcorrespondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposedstandard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to WilliamSessions, the associate deputy administrator (how'sthat for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program atUSDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mailaddress are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>To: <jonball@[...]>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claimstandards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, thestandards have not been published in a final form for use. Ihope this information is helpful.Please let me know if further information is needed.Thanks,William T. SessionsAssociate Deputy AdministratorLivestock and Seed Program

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seenmany of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot findanything to indicate if the standards were adopted.Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is abigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice orjealousy.

I think it is self-evident that greed and jealousy are more universalthan race-based hate.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is abigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice orjealousy.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is abigger societal problem

Their beliefs are irrelevant. "Racial injustice" is a bullshitcatch-all. It isn't the problem that proggies claim it to be, in largepart because most of what proggies - you - claim to be "socialinjustice" is nothing more than what you consider to be "wrong thought",and no one cares about that.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

it's illegal for the government to consider race.... Justice is blind.

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targetedbecause he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

Because the fascist left would be tickled pink to be able to make theshort step from 'hate crime' to 'hate think' - allowing them toimprison anyone they claim to merely hold forbidden opinions.

Just like they are effectively doing on campuses across the nation.

I remember when Evergreen was just a nutcase asylum, famous only forproducing bulldozer-wrestling silver medallist Rachel Corrie...

For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim wastargeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn'tclear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against theprofessor were, that there was a crime committed or that he wastargeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).

I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone whocommits the same crime where race is a factor.

it's illegal for the government to consider race.... Justice is blind.

"No Campus for White Men shines a bright light on the growing obsession withdiversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses,and shows how it is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmospherethat can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in Americansociety.

"Across the country, ugly campus protests over speakers with dissentingviewpoints, as well as a preoccupation with 'micro-aggressions,' 'triggerwarnings,' 'safe spaces' and brand-new 'gender identities,' make it obviousthat something has gone terribly wrong with higher education. For years,colleges have pursued policies favoring students based not on their merit,but on their race, gender, and sexual orientation. The disturbingly negativeeffects of this culture are now impossible to deny.

"In No Campus for White Men, Greer broadens the usual media focus wellbeyond coverage of demonstrations by easily offended college students, tospotlight the darker forces at work behind the scenes that are feedinghigher education's metastasizing crisis - and how all this results insustained animosity, first and foremost, toward white men. Greer alsodocuments how this starkly totalitarian culture is not isolated to highereducation, but is rather a result of trends already operating in society.Thus, he shows, today's campus madness may eventually dominate much more ofAmerica if it is not addressed and reversed soon."